Jean-Paul Sartre, the philosopher who theorized bad faith — and spent three decades practicing it

Jean-Paul Sartre

Photo: https://www.flickr.com/people/69061470@N05 / CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Born	June 21, 1905 Paris, France
Died	April 15, 1980 (74)
Occupation	Philosopher, novelist, playwright
Awards	Nobel Prize in Literature

The most quoted line in 20th-century philosophy — “Hell is other people” — was not, Sartre spent years insisting, about other people at all. The line from Huis clos was about the impossibility of seeing yourself clearly without passing through the gaze of someone who cannot fully understand you. He explained the misreading in interviews, prefaces, and lectures for the remainder of his life. Nobody especially listened. It is possible this confirmed his thesis.

Sartre was born on the Left Bank of Paris in June 1905, the only child of a Navy officer who died before Sartre turned two years old. He grew up inside the apartment of his maternal grandfather, Charles Schweitzer — a German-French academic who was a cousin to Albert Schweitzer — whose library became Sartre’s real childhood environment and, as he would later write with considerable venom, his first mistake. His left eye had been crossed since childhood; by his final decade he was almost entirely blind. A body the world had always read as deficient prepared him, in ways he analyzed at length, to distrust all given facts of existence.

Educated at the École Normale Supérieure, where he placed first in the agrégation de philosophie in 1929 — Simone de Beauvoir, who would become his lifelong companion, placed second — Sartre spent 1933 and 1934 in Berlin studying Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology at the Institut Français. What he found in Husserl, and through Husserl in Martin Heidegger, was a method for examining consciousness from the inside without the standard philosophical retreat into abstraction. He arrived in Berlin to ask how ashtray-ness becomes an ashtray. He returned to France with the materials for a new ontology.

His first novel, La Nausée, appeared in 1938 — a philosophical experiment in diary form, in which a man encounters the sheer contingency of existing things, the fact that they simply are without justification or design. The book announced an original mind capable of making abstruse phenomenological ideas move on a page. The theoretical infrastructure came five years later in L’être et le néant, a 700-page ontology that introduced being-for-itself and being-in-itself as categories that would occupy philosophers for decades, and that proposed “bad faith” — the self-deception by which people pretend they have no freedom over their choices — as the defining human failure. A year after that, his play Huis clos premiered in occupied Paris, to an audience that included German officers. Four characters trapped in a sealed room, unable to escape one another’s gaze. The line about hell and other people arrives near the end, almost as an afterthought.

In October 1945, a few weeks after the liberation of Paris, Sartre delivered a lecture that became L’existentialisme est un humanisme — “Existentialism Is a Humanism” — to an audience so large that people fainted in the crush. The argument was deliberately accessible: existence precedes essence, which means we are not born with a fixed human nature but create ourselves through our choices, and we cannot evade responsibility for what we choose by appealing to God, biology, or history. The idea was not philosophically novel, but Sartre had given it a form that worked in a Café de Flore booth as well as a seminar room. Existentialism became a movement, a publishing phenomenon, a shorthand for an entire generation’s secular ethics — all within roughly eighteen months.

With Beauvoir and other colleagues, Sartre founded Les Temps Modernes, the literary and political journal that served as the Left Bank’s intellectual conscience for the next three decades. He was also producing a series of plays that subjected his philosophy to political pressure: Les Mouches rewriting the Orestes myth as a fable of freedom and complicity; Les Mains sales asking whether political action can survive moral purity; Le Diable et le Bon Dieu dismantling the idea that God can anchor ethics. These were the years when Sartre was both the most famous philosopher in Europe and, by most accounts, the most charismatic one — small, cross-eyed, amphetamine-fueled, capable of holding a café table for eight hours and a lecture audience for three.

This is also the point at which his biography splits along the fault line his philosophy had opened. In 1952 he broke publicly with Albert Camus over Camus’s L’Homme révolté, which argued that revolutionary violence was not self-justifying and that the Soviet Union’s crimes could not be excused in the name of historical progress. The rupture, conducted partly in the pages of Les Temps Modernes, divided European intellectual life for a generation and has never fully healed. Sartre argued that criticizing the Soviet Union from a position of Western comfort was a luxury that working people could not afford. Camus said that excusing the gulag in the name of solidarity was a moral obscenity that the left would spend decades paying for. Sartre’s position won the argument in Paris salons. Camus’s position turned out to be correct about the history. In his own terms — those of a philosophy that makes self-deception the cardinal moral failure — Sartre had been living in bad faith. He later admitted as much, acknowledging that he had suppressed his doubts about Soviet crimes because, he said, he had not wanted to “despair the working class.” His own definition of bad faith, applied to himself, fits precisely.

In 1963 he published Les Mots, an autobiography that is also a sustained act of philosophical self-immolation — a reckoning with the childhood illusions that made him a writer, the grandfather whose library had given him his vocation, and the grandiose self-deception by which writers convince themselves their work matters. The Swedish Academy, citing precisely this book, offered him the Nobel Prize in Literature the following year. He wrote to decline before the announcement was made, citing his belief that writers should not allow themselves to become institutions. The Academy announced the prize anyway; the refusal became the most-discussed event of that Nobel season, a performance of philosophical consistency so clean it almost made you forget the previous decade.

By 1973 his sight was nearly gone. He continued through dictation, through conversations with Beauvoir and with his young secretary Benny Lévy, who had been the Maoist leader known as “Pierre Victor” and was then moving toward Orthodox Judaism. Their final extended interviews, published in 1980 as L’Espoir maintenant, showed what appeared to be a Sartre reconsidering his lifelong atheism, reaching toward Jewish ethical tradition, and stepping back from the more doctrinaire positions of his Marxist years. Beauvoir publicly disputed the authenticity of the transcripts, suggesting that a mostly-blind, dependent man had been guided toward conclusions that were not his own. The quarrel was still unresolved when Sartre died on April 15, 1980.

Some 50,000 people followed his coffin through the streets of Paris to the Montparnasse Cemetery. He had asked for no ceremony. His plays continue to be produced worldwide — Huis clos was staged simultaneously in Paris and Washington DC as recently as 2026 — and his philosophical vocabulary remains the default language for a certain kind of ethical self-examination. The line about hell and other people still tends to arrive without its context. Sartre would have recognized the mechanism: people taking a fragment of a philosophy they have not read and using it to avoid confronting the philosophy’s actual demands. He had a name for that.

Tags: Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre, No Exit, Being and Nothingness, existentialism, Nausea

Related People

Related People

Discussion